NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ, AKA Demon, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-30180 

D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00229-TOR-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Benjamin Rodriguez appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “[W]e review § 3582(c)(1) sentence 

reduction decisions for abuse of discretion,” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Rodriguez’s request for oral 

argument is denied.

FILED

MAR 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-30180 

799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.

Rodriguez argues that the district court abused its discretion in concluding 

that his obesity, in combination with his other medical conditions, did not 

constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. He 

further argues that the district court should not have treated his vaccination status 

as mitigating his risk from COVID-19 without first conducting an individualized 

analysis as to the protection the vaccine provides him. But the district court’s 

findings that Rodriguez’s conditions were being “treated or monitored,” and that 

“[n]o acute conditions were noted,” are grounded in the record. See United States 

v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its 

discretion if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record). 

And, given “the deference we must afford the district court when it makes these 

discretionary decisions,” we cannot conclude that the district court abused its 

discretion in its treatment of Rodriguez’s vaccination status. United States v. 

Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021).1

Likewise, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by 

concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. It grounded 

1 To the extent that Rodriguez’s briefs contain new factual allegations about his 

medical conditions, COVID-19 transmission within his facility, and the availability 

of booster doses, we do not consider such facts on appeal. Rodriguez remains free 

to raise such facts with the district court in any subsequent motion for 

compassionate release.
3 21-30180 

its analysis in the nature and circumstances of Rodriguez’s offense, his criminal 

history, and the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense and protect the public,

see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2), reasonably concluding that, even after 

consideration of “recent developments,” the “totality of all the facts” supported the 

original sentence.

AFFIRMED.